I agree with Adrian and Stewart.
The current terms that I know of are IOAM (In situ OAM), in-band OAM (sometimes
In-band OAM or Inband OAM), and out-of-band OAM (sometimes Out-of-band OAM). I
lean to remain it as is.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
Original
From: StewartBryant <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>;
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;熊泉00091065;[email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;
Date: 2023年12月18日 18:25
Subject: Re: [IPv6] [mpls] [Detnet] IOAM, iOAM, and oOAM abbreviations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On 16 Dec 2023, at 10:16, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote:
Personally, I don’t get the value of “inb-OAM” compared with “in-band OAM”.
It’s not like it can be said faster (one additional syllable to say it) and it
only saves four characters in typing.
“oob-OAM” is also marginal. Same number of syllables to say (I don’t think
anyone pronounces “oob” as a single syllable), and a little more saving in
typing.
+ 1
Stewart
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
